Co‐Designing <scp>AI</scp> ‐Generated Vaping Awareness Materials With Adolescents and Young Adults: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Developing mass meda campaigns to address rising youth vaping rates in Australia is timely and resource-intensive. Generative AI offers scalable content production, but little is known about youth perceptions of AI-generated multimedia materials or how their feedback can inform co-design processes. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase qualitative study in Queensland, Australia. Phase 1 explored adolescent (n = 10, ages 13-20) responses to 120 vaping awareness materials produced using an automated-AI framework. Focus group participants sorted materials into 'effective' and 'ineffective' piles and provided feedback. Based on feedback and quality criteria, 25 revised materials were created using an AI co-design framework incorporating iterative, few-shot prompting and manual text-image integration. Phase 2 explored young adult (n = 9, ages 18-25) perceptions of revised materials via semi-structured interviews. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Phase 1 participants rejected automated-AI-generated materials due to misaligned text-image combinations, artificial imagery, unrealistic vaping devices, and inauthentic language. Phase 2 identified six key characteristics of effective AI-co-designed materials that aligned with established health communication principles including visual appeal; focus on immediate consequences; relevance to youth; provision of practical advice; avoidance of ambiguity and fearmongering; and integration of multiple themes to reach diverse youth audiences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: AI tools can rapidly generate messages but an AI-co-design framework incorporating expert input and audience feedback is required to produce materials that are relevant, authentic, and evidence-based. This framework offers a promising pathway for developing timely, scalable responses to public health challenges such as youth vaping; though continued research is needed for effective and ethical implementation across diverse contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".